Transit City Plan

[GraphicMatt]

Matlow, who's been one of the architects of this transit shift (along with Stintz), mentioned transit priorities beyond TC in an update to his constituents last night:

In addition, when funding is made available in the coming years, I believe our next transit priorities should include, but not be limited to, finally connecting the Yonge and University lines at Sheppard (as Councillors Pasternak and Augimeri have advocated for), a Downtown Relief Line constructed to take the pressure off of the over-crowded Yonge subway line (try getting on this line during rush hour today) and extending the Eglinton Crosstown to Pearson airport. All new transit projects should be designed as part of a regional transit strategy.

http://joshmatlow.ca/ward-22/newsletters/726-its-time-to-move-forward-with-building-transit.html

 

[Tulse]

I was more concerned with one dominant mean of public transportation proposed as a comprehensive long-term solution... A comprehensive plan would include DRL, some BRTs, and definitely, many LRTs.?

Transit City was by no means intended to be the final word on transit in Toronto -- it was meant to be a relatively affordable, realistic, stageable plan to significantly increase transit accessibility and capacity for a large part of the city otherwise underserved by existing service. There was (and is) nothing in Transit City that precludes a DRL, BRTs, or extention of YUS and BD.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I want subways. I also want 25°C weather in February. I also want a pony. I also want... You get the picture.

Yes, I want subways... where needed. We need one for a Downtown Relief Line, where the density would be cost effective. A subway along Sheppard is not cost effective, nor is one along Eglinton East where the roadway and density would allow for surface rapid transit.

We NEED Transit City that would serve more people ALL across the city and not just a small section.

Rob Ford is transit illiterate, still doesn't know the difference between streetcars and light rail, avoids public transit, takes his gas-guzzling SUV instead of walking (AKA exercise) to bus stops, has a phobia against surface rail, and ignores facts and figures that do not support his way only.

Transit City should be built, but with modifications like more grade separations. For example, Weston should be an underground station, and Leslie should be an overpass station. Other grade separations should also be considered.

 

[Electrify]

What country are we talking about with those names?

Scarborough. These are all roads the LRT was going to stop at in the Transit City plan.

 

[nfitz]

Transit City should be built, but with modifications like more grade separations. For example, Weston should be an underground station, and Leslie should be an overpass station. Other grade separations should also be considered.

How about less stops?

Don't see how Leslie would work as an overpass, with the clearance under the railway to the east. But I don't see why it needs anything. If you simply run it along the south side of the road from the Brentcliffe portal to the Don Mills Road portal, it wouldn't interfere with Leslie ... or anything else.

 

[CDL.TO]

Just what we needed. A transit city thread.

I think the mods need to start being a big more aggressive on merging these virtually identical threads.

Since it's a poll, I think it's best to leave this thread for the time being. I'll merge it with the regular Transit City Debate thread later in the week.

 

[rbt]

Rob Ford ... takes his gas-guzzling SUV

He generally drives, and is the sole occupant of, a gas guzzling mini-van.

 

[Marcanadian]

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

BRTs where a central part of TC actually.

 

[vz64]

Transit City was by no means intended to be the final word on transit in Toronto -- it was meant to be a relatively affordable, realistic, stageable plan to significantly increase transit accessibility and capacity for a large part of the city otherwise underserved by existing service. There was (and is) nothing in Transit City that precludes a DRL, BRTs, or extention of YUS and BD.

I agree that TC does not preclude development of DRL or BRTs, but it does not include them in its short-term development plan. I am still puzzled why SELRT was #1 priority for TC... In my opinion, TC needs some serious revision before it can be implemented.

 

[rbt]

I agree that TC does not preclude development of DRL or BRTs.

Transit city included minimum service levels, jump queue lanes, etc. on several major bus routes. Ford (via Stintz) cancelled these enhancements (deferred last year, outright cancelled this year).

 

[Tulse]

I agree that TC does not preclude development of DRL or BRTs, but it does not include them in its short-term development plan.

The DRL would likely cost more than the entirety of Transit City, and take far longer to build. It makes far more sense to treat that as a separate, dedicated project. One feature of TC is that it was a collection of smaller, relatively easy-to-build projects, each of which would provide immediate improvements to the transit of their areas. The DRL is a project that will be big, complex, expensive, and take a long time in construction before it provides any benefits. It's a completely different animal than the TC projects.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Are we convinced that Transit City will be saved?

We can hope.

 

[JasonParis]

The DRL would likely cost more than the entirety of Transit City, and take far longer to build. It makes far more sense to treat that as a separate, dedicated project. One feature of TC is that it was a collection of smaller, relatively easy-to-build projects, each of which would provide immediate improvements to the transit of their areas. The DRL is a project that will be big, complex, expensive, and take a long time in construction before it provides any benefits. It's a completely different animal than the TC projects.

Very true. Also, one best dealt with once whatever revenue stream Metrolinx is expected to announce next year, regarding financing transit expansion, gets fully implemented (hopefully within five years).

 

[andrewpmk]

My point was not about when and how we hit a capacity limits on those planned LRT routs; I was more concerned with one dominant mean of public transportation proposed as a comprehensive long-term solution... A comprehensive plan would include DRL, some BRTs, and definitely, many LRTs. The Sheppard Line was a mistake, I agree, but was SELRT a priority or was it just a way to kill any possibility of extending this artificially handicapped line? Who was a planning expert behind SELRT?

If capacity is claimed to not be an issue on any of the TC lines that strongly suggests that it is not attractive as an alternative to driving. A faster subway line with fewer transfers will be more likely to attract people who drive, and to attract people who use parallel overcrowded bus routes. If getting from Scarborough Centre to York University requires bus-streetcar-subway-bus-subway (four transfers) then people will drive, likely on Hwy 401. If you extend the Sheppard subway to Scarborough Centre and Downsview then 1 transfer is needed and people will be much more likely to use the subway. The fundamental flaw of TC is that it is slow (too many minor stops) and that it requires a zillion transfers (three transfers to get from STC to Downsview is ridiculous). Though I am severely skeptical of the accuracy of ridership projections, as I suspect Lastman and Miller both deliberately fudged the ridership models by using dubious assumptions to make the case for subways and for Transit City respectively.